On May 3, 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East began work in Tokyo. This was the second trial of the main war criminals responsible for starting the Second World War. The first international trial - of German war criminals - began on November 20, 1945 in Nuremberg.

Now the hour of retribution has come for the Japanese aggressors. The militarists, who dreamed of establishing world domination with their partners on the axis at the cost of seizing foreign territories, the death and enslavement of other peoples, and who imagined themselves to be bearers of the highest spiritual values, appeared before the court of nations.

The demand for the trial of Japanese war criminals was formulated in the Potsdam Declaration of Japan's unconditional surrender. Paragraph 10 of this declaration read: “We do not seek to enslave the Japanese as a race or destroy them as a nation, but severe justice must be meted out to all war criminals, including those who committed atrocities against our prisoners of war.”

The powers that signed and acceded to the Potsdam Declaration considered fair punishment of Japanese war criminals as an important condition for lasting peace and the democratization of Japan's state and political system. They declared: “The power and influence of those must be eliminated forever. who deceived the Japanese people and led them onto the path of world domination, for we believe that peace, security and justice are impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven out of the world.”

Thus, the Potsdam Declaration laid the foundation for the creation of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. By signing the act of unconditional surrender on September 2, 1945, Japan fully accepted the terms of the declaration and pledged that “the Japanese government and its successors will honestly implement the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.”

An important milestone on the path to bringing justice to Japanese war criminals was the Moscow meeting of the foreign ministers of the USSR, USA and Great Britain, held on December 16 - 26, 1945, at which it was decided to entrust the implementation of all measures necessary to implement the conditions of surrender, occupation and control over Japan, and therefore concerning the punishment of Japanese war criminals, to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan. China also joined this decision.

However, neither the Potsdam Declaration, nor the act of unconditional surrender of Japan, nor the decisions of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers developed specific forms of implementation of justice. These forms were determined during diplomatic negotiations between nine interested states - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, China, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Netherlands, which reached an agreement on the establishment of the International Military Tribunal. Representatives of these states became part of it. India and the Philippines subsequently joined the agreement.

On January 19, 1946, the Supreme Allied Commander in Japan, MacArthur, issued an order establishing the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and approved its charter. The task of the tribunal was to organize “a fair and speedy trial and punishment of the main war criminals in the Far East.”

The charter of the Tokyo Tribunal incorporated the most important provisions of the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. However, unlike the latter, the principle of parity, that is, equal participation of countries in organizing and conducting the process, was not observed. If in Nuremberg the members of the tribunal chose the presiding officer by mutual agreement, the main prosecutors distributed responsibilities for supporting the prosecution also by agreement, and the trial was conducted in four languages ​​(according to the number of countries participating in the trial), then in Tokyo everything was different.

The statute was drafted by American lawyers in accordance with the rules of Anglo-Saxon procedure, and some very significant issues of the judicial process turned out to be not covered by either the statute or the rules of procedure. Issues that arose during the trial were resolved as if the case had been heard in an English or American court.

Supreme Commander MacArthur was given extremely broad powers. He appointed the chairman, chief prosecutor, and members of the tribunal from representatives proposed by the states that signed the act of surrender, as well as India and the Philippines. He had the right to commute or somehow change the sentence, but not to increase the penalty. The official languages ​​of the trial were only Japanese and English. The Americans sought to emphasize that priority in the defeat of Japan belonged to them, and they took key positions at the Tokyo Process.

The progressive world community and the people of Japan, who became the first victims of the militarists, greeted the news of the trial with approval. The idea of ​​punishing war criminals was popular among the Japanese. At rallies organized by the Communist Party and left-wing organizations in Japan, extensive lists of those responsible for starting the war were drawn up.

On May 3, 1946, the first meeting of the International Tribunal took place in the building of the former War Ministry. The members of the tribunal were: from the USSR - member of the military collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR General I. M. Zaryanov, from the United States of America - former chief military prosecutor of the US Army General M. Kramer, from China - Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Legislative Yuan Mei Zhouao, from Great Britain - Member of the Supreme Court W. Patrick, from France - Prosecutor 1st Class A. Bernard, from Australia - Chairman of the Supreme Court of Queensland W. Webb, from Holland - Member of the Court of the City of Utrecht, Professor of Utrecht University B. Rolling, from India - University Professor R. Pal, from Canada - Member of the Supreme Court S. McDougall, from New Zealand - Member of the Supreme Court E. Northcroft, from the Philippines - Member of the Supreme Court D. Jaranilla. Australian judge Webb was appointed chairman of the International Tribunal, American judge J. Kinap was appointed chief prosecutor (he is also the US prosecutor).

Each country participating in the tribunal provided more lawyers as additional prosecutors. From the USSR, the prosecution was represented by: Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences S. A. Golupsky, State Counselors of Justice A. N. Vasiliev and L. N. Smirnov. From China, the additional prosecutor was the chief prosecutor of the Shanghai Supreme Court, Xiang Zhe-chun; from Great Britain, former member of parliament, lawyer A. Comyns-Carr (deputy chief prosecutor); from France, the chief prosecutor in the jury trial of the Seine-et-Marne department, R. Oneto, from Australia - member of the Supreme Court of Queenslapd, A. Mansfield, from Holland - member of the special court in The Hague V. Bergerhof-Mulder, from Canada - Deputy Head of the Military Judicial Department of the Canadian Army, Brigadier General G. Nolan, from New Zealand - Supreme Court Prosecutor General R. Quilliam, from the Philippines - member of the Philippine Congress, Major P. Lopez, from India - G. Menon.

The defense was represented by 79 Japanese and 25 American lawyers. The participation of American lawyers in the trial was motivated by the incompetence of Japanese lawyers in the Anglo-Saxon legal procedure. If at the Nuremberg trials each accused had one defense lawyer, then in Tokyo - three or four.

28 people who developed and carried out the policy of aggression were brought to justice. Most of the accused were professional military men, closely associated with the "zai-batsu" and court circles. Each defendant in 1928 - 1945 (the period covered by the indictment) held various leadership positions while actively participating in Japan's involvement in the war.

But not all the perpetrators ended up in the dock. Representatives of the largest Japanese monopolies that financed and directed the aggressors were not brought to justice, although the Soviet prosecution insisted on this. This was explained primarily by the fact that trials of monopolies compromised the capitalist system too much and could result in trials of imperialism, which gave rise to wars of conquest. Bourgeois politicians could not allow this to happen. Nevertheless, the facts concerning the role of monopolies in starting the war were so eloquent that bourgeois lawyers did not dare to keep silent about them. In the court verdict, representatives of monopoly capital appear repeatedly, but facelessly: “industrialists”, “zaibatsu”, “bankers”.

The Japanese Prime Ministers of different years, K. Koiso, H. Tojo, K. Hiranuma, K. Hirota, Vice Prime Minister N. Hoshino, Ministers of War S. Araki, S. Itagaki, D. Minami, S. appeared before the court. Hata, Vice Minister of War H. Kimura, Naval Ministers O. Nagano, S. Shimada, Naval Vice Minister T. Oka, Commander of Japanese Forces in Central China I. Matsui, Chiefs of the Military Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of War A. Muto, K. Sato, member of the Supreme Military Council K. Doihara, Chief of the General Staff of the Army I. Umozu, Foreign Ministers I. Matsuoka, M. Shigemitsu, S. Togo, diplomats H. Oshima, T. Shiratori. Minister of Finance O. Kaya, organizer of the fascist youth movement K. Hashimoto, ideologist of Japanese fascism S. Okawa, Lord Privy Seal K. Kido, Chairman of the Planning Committee under the Cabinet of Ministers T. Suzuki.

The defendants were charged with conspiring with Germany and Italy to “ensure the domination and exploitation of the rest of the world by aggressive countries.” Using all means, the defendants “intended and actually planned, prepared, launched and waged aggressive wars,” the indictment said, “against the United States of America, the Republic of China, the British Commonwealth of Nations and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Australia, Canada, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, India, the Philippines and other peace-loving peoples in violation of international law, treaties, obligations and assurances... in violation of the laws and customs of war...".

55 indictments were brought forward, divided into three groups: a) “Crimes against peace,” which included the preparation and unleashing of aggressive wars that violated international law; b) “Murder”, where the defendants were charged with the murder of military personnel and civilians during the outbreak of illegal military actions and other murders in violation of generally accepted laws and customs of war (execution of prisoners of war, massacres of civilians); c) “War crimes and crimes against humanity,” which included inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees.

When asked whether the defendants plead guilty, they all answered in the negative. On June 3, the prosecution began presenting evidence of the defendants' guilt, which included oral and written testimony from witnesses and defendants, documentary and physical evidence. Significant difficulties arose with documentary evidence. If the German criminals did not have time to destroy the originals of the most important documents and they fell into the hands of the Allies, then in Japan almost all the documentation that could expose the militarists in committing crimes was destroyed.

The tribunal's verdict repeatedly refers to these actions aimed at concealing the atrocities. Below is an extract from the judgment relating to the documentation under the “Atrocities” section.

“When it became apparent that Japan would be forced to surrender, organized efforts were made to burn or otherwise destroy all documents and other evidence regarding the mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees. On August 14, 1945, the Japanese Minister of War ordered all army headquarters to immediately destroy by burning all secret documents. On the same day, the chief of the gendarmerie sent instructions to the various gendarmerie departments detailing methods for effectively destroying large quantities of documents by burning them. The head of the Prisoner of War Camps Division (Prisoner of War Administration Department of the Bureau of Military Affairs) sent a circular telegram to the Chief of Staff of the Japanese Army on the island of Taiwan on August 20, 1945, in which he stated: “With documents that may be unfavorable for us if they fall into the hands of the enemy, they should be treated in the same way as secret documents, and after use they must be destroyed.” This telegram was sent to the Japanese Army in Korea, the Kwantung Army, the Army in North China, Hong Kong, Borneo, Thailand, Malaya and Java. It was in this telegram that the head of the prison camp department made the following statement: “Personnel who have mistreated prisoners of war and civilian internees or who are treated with great displeasure are therefore permitted to immediately move to another location or escape without a trace.”

However, a thorough search for documents, as well as the use of top secret Japanese-German correspondence at the disposal of the intelligence agencies of the Allied states, helped to prepare convincing evidence that exposed and quite fully revealed the criminal activities of the defendants. The prosecution presented extensive evidence of the preparation of Japanese public opinion for war: the education of youth in the spirit of the so-called “samurai traditions”, the dissemination of ideas about the superiority of the “Yamato race” over other peoples, its mission, which was to implement the principle of “hakko ichiu” (the creation of a colonial empire under under Japanese rule). It was proven that pro-fascist political organizations were being planted in the country, and terrorist acts were committed against political figures disliked by the militarists.

The prosecution presented to the tribunal numerous documents proving the intensity of Japan's military preparations: a constant increase in the size of the army, the creation of the institution of total war, the introduction of a law on general mobilization, and the restructuring of industry in accordance with the needs of the war.

Japan's first act of aggression was the seizure of Manchuria. Until 1928, the prosecution noted, Japan had achieved significant influence in this country, and after the cabinet of G. Tanaka came to power, Manchuria was occupied and a puppet government was created in it. In subsequent years, aggression in China continued. In the occupied territories, the Japanese authorities pursued a policy of terror and repression.

Prosecutor Xiang Zhe-chun, who presented evidence on Japanese atrocities in China, noted that murders and mass exterminations, torture, violence, and robbery took place in the occupied areas of China throughout the entire period, from 1937 to 1945. After the fall of Nanjing, when the Chinese The troops stopped resisting and the city was completely under the control of the Japanese army of General Matsui, a wild orgy of violence and crime began. It continued unabated for more than forty days. “The high command and the Japanese government have been made aware of these atrocities continually committed by Japanese soldiers. Despite frequent notices and protests, the atrocities continued. This was the Japanese system of warfare."

In pursuit of the goal of suppressing the will of the Chinese people to resist, the Japanese promoted the production of drugs. The funds received from their implementation were used to finance military expansion. When presenting the issue of economic aggression in China, the prosecution stated that Japan had taken possession of “almost all the valuable minerals and raw materials of Manchuria and China.”

Having occupied Indochina, which was strategically important and rich in raw materials after the surrender of France, the Japanese aggressors began preparations for the seizure of the countries of the South Seas.

On December 7, 1941, Japan fell to the American naval base of Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands, and then to American and British possessions in the Pacific Ocean. There was also an attack on the Dutch Indies. Based on factual material, it was shown that although Holland was the first to declare war on Japan, the aggression was committed by the latter.

The document, entitled "Preliminary Plan of Policy towards the Southern Regions" and marked "extremely secret", stated that the first stage of Japan's aggression in the southern regions was aimed at capturing French Indochina and the Dutch Indies. East India, British Burma and the British colonies in the Straits of Malacca, including Singapore. Already in January 1941, an order was given for a special occupation currency for the Dutch Indies, the first issue of which was made in March.

The Soviet prosecution presented evidence under the section “Japanese Aggression against the USSR.” Prosecutor S. A. Golunsky noted that aggression against the Soviet Union cannot be understood and assessed in isolation from the historical background against which it developed. Therefore, he focused on the events associated with the Japanese intervention in the Far East in 1918 - 1922. The prosecutor emphasized that, although the Japanese failed to capture Soviet territory at that time, “the dream of this continued to live among the Japanese military and Japanese imperialist politicians until very recently and motivated a number of their aggressive actions...”. Golunsky also recalled the treacherous attack on Port Arthur, comparing it with the attack on Pearl Harbor: “The same sudden attack without a declaration of war under the cover of negotiations taking place at that time. This is not a coincidence, but this is the method of Japanese aggressive policy, this is the Japanese military doctrine on which entire generations of Japanese officers were trained.”

Characterizing the internal policies of Germany, Italy and Japan, Golunsky noted the main features inherent in the regimes of these countries: terror and the preaching of nationalism.

The Soviet representative divided the period covered by the accusation into four logical parts (stages), pointing out that the goals of the aggression always remained unchanged, but each period of time was characterized by specific features. Thus, at the first stage (from 1928 to the fall of 1931), Japan’s desire to gain a springboard for an attack on the USSR was revealed. The main task in the second stage (from the autumn of 1931 to 1936) was the transformation of Manchuria into a military springboard and the conclusion of a military-political alliance with Germany against the USSR, and later Italy joined it. During the third stage (from 1937 until the outbreak of the war in Europe), there was a further rapprochement of the three powers, expressed in the conclusion of a tripartite pact, which finally formalized their aggressive conspiracy against other states. At the last stage (from the autumn of 1939 until the surrender of Japan), the militarists, confident in Germany’s victory, waited for an opportune moment to attack the USSR, and after its defeat they tried to avoid unconditional surrender.

Based on a large number of documents, Soviet lawyers identified the anti-Soviet orientation of Japan’s aggressive policy and gave a deep analysis of its aggressive essence. The prosecution presented strong evidence of the guilt of the defendants and traced the role of each in the formation and implementation of the aggressive course that Japan followed. Among the accused, perhaps the main figure in the trial was the leader of the Japanese militarists, former Prime Minister Tojo, whose fascist views left no doubt. Occupying the posts of Chief of Staff of the Kwantung Army in 1937, Minister of War in 1940, and Prime Minister from December 1941 to July 1944, he played an important role in turning Japan into a center of tension in the Far East, and then into unleashing war against other states. Tojo continued to defend his views at the trial, without repenting of anything.

Among the defendants was one of the oldest statesmen, former Prime Minister Hiranuma, who enjoyed enormous influence in the ruling circles of Japan. A promoter of fascist views, who led one of the most influential fascist organizations (Kokuhonsha), he was directly responsible for starting a war against China, the USA, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and for aggressive actions against the MPR and the USSR in 1939. The defendants belonged to the ruling circles of Japan , and their names, as the prosecution proved, were closely associated with various stages of Japanese aggression. The prosecution presented its evidence for 160 days.

On February 24, 1947, the defense began presenting evidence. Her behavior, as well as the entire course of the work of the tribunal, was greatly influenced by the change in the international situation. The times of the Cold War were approaching, when the United States in its policy moved away from cooperation with the USSR, which led to a deterioration in American-Soviet relations. For capitalist countries, Germany and Japan no longer posed a threat, while the strengthening of the position of the Soviet Union, the increase in its authority, democratic transformations in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, many of which were embarking on the path of socialist development, and the growth of the national liberation movement in the colonies caused great anxiety and concern among US leadership.

Many statesmen and military leaders of the United States already saw Japan as an ally in the future struggle against the USSR and sought to turn it into an instrument of anti-Soviet, anti-communist policy. However, at that time they were forced to take into account objective conditions: not much time had passed since the end of the war, and the sharp turn from the ideals for which progressive people around the world fought and the implementation of which was expected, to the policy of international reaction was not easy.

Characteristic in this regard is the opinion of MacArthur, who had great opportunities to influence the course of the process. “The Potsdam Declaration,” he wrote in his memoirs, “also contained a purge clause, demanding that all Japanese who had been active in militaristic and ultranationalist activities before the war be removed from government service and stripped of all political influence. I strongly doubted the wisdom of this measure, since it led to the removal from service of many capable administrators who would be difficult to replace in the construction of a new Japan. I began the purge with minimal brutality, but this was the only issue that had support from the Japanese people."

During the Tokyo trial, the defense, taking advantage of the worsening international situation and the strengthening of reactionary sentiments in the ruling circles of capitalist countries, tried by all means to acquit the defendants. American lawyers, who were considered assistants to the Japanese, but actually led them, showed great activity. Immediately after the indictment was filed, the defense moved to have it quashed, and when the tribunal rejected this motion, the defense asked to quash the counts in the indictment or to exclude certain defendants from the indictment.

In an effort to discredit the tasks facing the tribunal, the defense throughout the trial questioned the jurisdiction of the tribunal. In the opening speech of the defense, Japanese lawyer I. Kiose stated that “neither in 1928 nor after that there were such principles of international law that imposed personal responsibility for political actions on persons acting on behalf of a state exercising its rights to sovereignty.” . In a speech by Japanese lawyer K. Takayanagi, an attempt was made to challenge the competence of the tribunal to try Japanese war criminals on the grounds that the tribunal was composed of representatives of the victorious powers. The Tribunal rejected this part of the speech.

Subsequently, wanting to save his defendants from punishment for crimes committed in many ways similar to Hitler’s, the same Takayanagi, explaining the motives for the crimes committed by German and Japanese military personnel, cynically stated: “This type of action can only be a reflection of national or racial characteristics. Crimes, no less than the greatest works of art, can express characteristic features reflecting the mores of a race...” According to the lawyer, the defendants embodied the characteristic features of the “Yamato race” and the “Nordic race”, which could not compromise them. Rather, on the contrary, the protection came from the special high properties of these races, which placed them “beyond good and evil.”

The defense did not stop at the most gross distortions of reality. In particular, the already mentioned Kiose stated that the prosecution misunderstood the term “new order in East Asia,” which, it turns out, meant “respect for the independence of each country, it never included the idea of ​​​​conquering the world and has nothing to do with limiting individual freedom " The defender denied both the aggressiveness of Japan's foreign policy and its responsibility for the outbreak of hostilities in July 1937, shamelessly asserting that China was guilty of unleashing hostilities, while Japan, on the contrary, adhered to a peaceful policy.

Trying to play on anti-communist sentiments, many lawyers argued that Japan waged the war not for aggressive purposes, but for the sake of protection from communism and “the Japanese were rightly afraid of the spread of communism, the penetration of which into Asia led to a disruption of peace and order.” The criminal acts of Japanese militarists in China were also explained by “reasonable and justified fear of the spread of world communism.” Even the pact concluded by Germany, Japan and Italy was not called aggressive, but defensive and aimed against the spread of communism in Europe and Asia. The speeches of some lawyers were openly defiant. Defense attorney O. Cunningham, whose documents were not accepted due to their unreliability, accused the tribunal of “not wanting to adhere to... the modern US political line.”

Defenders A. Lazarus, B. Blakeney and others denied the anti-Soviet orientation of Japan's foreign policy. They called Japanese aggression at Lake Khasan and on the Khalkhin Gol River ordinary border incidents, and the detailed plans for an attack on the USSR, as well as aggressive actions in Manchuria, Korea and the Pacific Ocean, as defensive. By presenting black as white, the defense tried to portray Japan’s aggressive course as “peace-loving” and “fair,” and through the efforts of lawyers, Tojo, Kido and Shigemitsu were elevated to the rank of “peace fighters.”

Defense witnesses were repeatedly caught in lies, which was even recorded in the tribunal's verdict. They “gave verbose, ambiguous and evasive answers that only aroused mistrust.” Many of the defense's speeches "failed to achieve their purpose because the argument was based on the testimony of witnesses whom the tribunal did not consider credible because they were not sincere."

Lawyers for Japanese war criminals deliberately delayed the Tokyo trial by discussing irrelevant issues, reading out lengthy documents, and repeatedly asking for breaks. Almost every piece of evidence from the prosecution was subject to unfounded objections. The following figures indicate the dishonesty of the defense. Of the 2,316 documents submitted by her, the tribunal rejected 714, or 30 percent, while of the 2,810 documents submitted by the prosecution, 76, or less than 3 percent, were rejected. The protection phase lasted over ten and a half months.

In its closing speech, the prosecution summed up the results of the two-year trial and criticized the defense's positions. Chief Prosecutor Keenan, refuting one of the defendants' main arguments that their aggressive actions were motivated by self-defense, said: “We agree that the right of self-defense under international law is reserved to every state equally as every citizen enjoys this right under domestic law.” right. However, in this case, we believe that it has been clearly demonstrated that the Japanese invasion of China... political domination, economic exploitation and massive incidents of atrocities all constituted aggression of the most sinister nature... These defendants can no longer successfully justify their actions in military operations launched on December 8, 1941 in the Pacific against the Western powers. Likewise, the evidence shows that the ruling clique of Japan pursued an aggressive policy against the USSR, committed acts of aggression, and for a number of years prepared a large-scale war of aggression against the Soviet Union.”

In the response speech, the defense again discussed general legal issues, trying to prove the impunity of waging aggressive war, the inadmissibility of ex post facto liability, and the incompetence of the tribunal. The defendants' lawyers again resorted to undignified methods, reading previously rejected documents, making insulting attacks against the states represented in the tribunal, and promoting the criminal views of the defendants.

On November 4, 1948, the tribunal began announcing the verdict, the reading of which continued until November 12. The verdict once again confirmed the competence of the tribunal to judge the main Japanese criminals. One of the defense's arguments was rejected that, having agreed to accept the act of surrender, the Japanese government allegedly did not understand the inevitability of bringing to trial those responsible for starting the war, and therefore they could not be tried.

The Tribunal considered it established that “the Japanese Government, before signing the instrument of surrender, considered the matter and that the members of the Government who advised acceptance of the terms of surrender foresaw that those charged with responsibility for the war would be brought to justice. As early as August 10, 1945, three weeks before signing the instrument of surrender, the Emperor told defendant Kido: “I cannot bear the thought... that those responsible for the war will be punished... but I believe that now the time has come when the unbearable will have to be endured.”

The verdict recognized that throughout the entire period under review, Japan's foreign and domestic policies were aimed at preparing and unleashing wars of aggression. From year to year, the role of the military increased in all spheres of society, and the cult of cruelty was instilled. The country was intensively preparing for war. Having concluded a military-political alliance with fascist countries, Japan hatched plans to seize East and Southeast Asia, the countries of the Pacific Rim, as well as the territories of the Soviet Union - Siberia and Primorye.

Japan's actions in China, falsely called "incidents", are a war of aggression that began on September 18, 1931 and ended with the surrender of Japan. The first stage of the war, which was preceded by a powerful propaganda campaign under the slogan "Manchuria - the lifeline of Japan", began with the invasion of Manchuria and Rehe Province. The verdict noted that this was a planned attack prepared by officers of the General Staff and the Kwantung Army.

Mapchukuo was created by the Kwantung Army and its economy was under Japanese control. Manchuria was assigned the role of a workshop for the production of military materials. “Japan,” according to defendant Hoshino, “took from Manchuria everything that could be taken.”

The verdict recognized the proven fact that Japan was waging a war of aggression against the United States, the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Netherlands and France. The inconsistency of the self-defense thesis and the assertion of Japan's hopeless situation due to trade restrictions was once again emphasized. The measures which were adopted by some of the Western powers to restrict Japanese trade were a fully justifiable policy to induce Japan to abandon the aggressive course which she had long followed and was determined to follow.

A special place in Japan's military plans was occupied by aggression against the Soviet Union with the aim of seizing its territory in the Far East. It was one of the main elements of Japanese national policy. In this light, the capture of Manchuria was regarded not simply as a stage in the conquest of China, but as a means of providing a springboard for offensive military operations against the USSR. Plans of the Japanese General Staff for 1939 and 1941. provided for the concentration of large forces in Eastern Manchuria to capture the cities of Voroshilov, Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Blagoveshchensk, Kuibyshevka, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Nikolaevsk-on-Amur, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Sovetskaya Gavan and the northern part of Sakhalin Island.

The verdict highlighted the insincerity shown by Japan in concluding a neutrality pact with the USSR, under the guise of which it hoped to facilitate the attack.

The pact also served as a cover for assistance to Germany. Having stationed a large group of troops in Manchuria, Japan pinned down significant forces of the Soviet Army in the east, while heavy fighting took place in the west. She supplied Germany with information about the military potential of the Soviet Union, obstructed Soviet shipping, detained ships without any reason, and in some cases sank them.

All of the defendants, with the exception of Matsui, were found guilty of crimes against peace, that is, of hatching a conspiracy aimed at establishing military, naval, political and economic dominance “over East Asia, the Pacific and Indian Oceans and all the countries and islands located therein.” or bordering them..." by unleashing wars of aggression. Each defendant, depending on his participation, was found guilty of starting a war against a particular state.

The verdict mentions numerous cases of crimes committed by the Japanese military against humanity, violating the elementary laws and customs of war. Mass killings, "death marches" where prisoners of war, including sick ones, were forced to walk long distances in conditions that even well-trained troops could not endure, forced labor in tropical heat without protection from the sun, a complete lack of housing and medicine, resulting in thousands deaths from disease, beatings and torture of all kinds to extract information or confessions, and even cannibalism are just some of the atrocities for which evidence was presented to the tribunal.

These actions of the most cruel and inhumane nature were practiced in the Japanese army and clearly demonstrated their moral character. The Japanese treated the Chinese prisoners especially cruelly. For a long time, the tribunal received evidence of atrocities committed in the same pattern on all fronts. There was no doubt that they were organized and carried out on orders from above. Captured diaries of Japanese soldiers also confirmed the existence of such orders.

Almost half of the defendants: Doihara, Itagaki, Kimura, Koiso, Matsui, Muto, Shigemitsu, Tojo, Hata, Hirota were charged with charges related to the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees.

However, the verdict was not free from some contradictions and errors. Citing facts indicating the existence of close military-political ties between Germany and Japan, the verdict considered the existence of a common conspiracy between Japan and Germany against the world not proven. While acknowledging the military as the main culprits of the war, the verdict clearly downplayed the importance of government officials and did not at all show the sinister role of monopolies. In other words, there was no deep analysis of the reasons that led to the war. But this does not detract from the enormous historical significance of the verdict.

The guilt of the defendants was so obvious and grave that all attempts to acquit them were unsuccessful. Fearing the righteous anger of the people, US reactionary circles did not dare to openly come forward with the rehabilitation of the main Japanese war criminals. 25 defendants were sentenced. Matsuoka and Nagano died before it was sentenced. Okawa was declared insane.

The tribunal sentenced Doihara, Itagaki, Kimura, Matsui, Tojo, Muto and Hirota to death by hanging, while the remaining defendants were sentenced to various prison terms. Summing up the results of the trial, the Izvestia newspaper wrote on November 28, 1948: “The merit of the tribunal is that, despite numerous attempts by lawyers and other defenders of the main Japanese criminals, despite the tricks of even some members of the tribunal, it handed down a fair and severe verdict... Throughout the entire process, the main Japanese war criminals had many defenders who occupied prominent positions in the United States. It is possible that these defenders will make a last attempt to alleviate the fate of the convicted.”

And so it happened. On November 22, 1948, MacArthur confirmed the verdict. However, instead of carrying it out, he accepted appeals from the convicted Hirota and Doihara to send them to the US Supreme Court, and in relation to all those convicted, he postponed the execution of the sentence. Subsequently, Kido, Oka, Sato, Shimada and Togo also filed appeals. The US Supreme Court accepted them for consideration.

The behavior of MacArthur, who abused his powers, and the illegal intervention of the US Supreme Court aroused the indignation of the entire progressive public. Under pressure from world public opinion, the US government opposed the Supreme Court's decision to hear appeals from Japan's top war criminals. On December 23, 1948, the sentence was carried out.

The most important result of the Tokyo Process was the recognition that aggression is the most serious international crime, and those responsible for unleashing it are subject to severe punishment. The special significance of this thesis is difficult to overestimate, since it was recorded despite the changed foreign policy situation and the intensification of the Cold War, despite the fact that the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal caused a stormy protest from the entire reactionary camp and by the time the verdict was announced in Tokyo had already given rise to numerous literature trying to discredit Nuremberg trial and undermine public confidence in it. Its flow increased after the publication of the verdict in Tokyo. The most vicious and harsh objections from the apologists of imperialism are precisely the decisions of the courts recognizing the criminality of preparing and waging an aggressive war.

The Tokyo Trial declared and put into practice those legal principles that became part of modern international law and were subsequently approved by the UN as establishments of international criminal law, providing for liability for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Tokyo International Military Tribunal

As you know, on September 3, 1945, World War II ended with the defeat of militaristic Japan. The Japanese military (as well as their allies - the German fascists) committed the most serious crimes against peoples. In this regard, the decisions of the Potsdam Conference also raised the question of punishing Japanese war criminals. After the defeat of Japan, at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the USSR, USA and Great Britain in December 1945 in Moscow, an agreement was reached (China joined it) on the organization and competence of the Far Eastern Commission and the Allied Council for Japan. The resolution of this Commission determined the arrest, trial and punishment of Japanese war criminals, and after negotiations between the Allied governments, the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Powers on January 19, 1946 approved the Charter of the International Tribunal for the Far East (similar to the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal).

In accordance with it, the Tribunal was created “for the fair and speedy trial and punishment of the main war criminals in the Far East.” Twenty-eight leading Japanese government officials (prime ministers, ministers, representatives of the high military command) were transferred to the Tokyo Tribunal. The tribunal convicted twenty defendants, sentencing seven to death by hanging, sixteen to life imprisonment, and two to twenty and seven years' imprisonment, respectively. On December 22, 1948, the sentence of those sentenced to death was carried out.

Like the Nuremberg Trials, the Tokyo Trials influenced the development of norms and principles of international law on responsibility for international crimes.

International ad hoc courts of our time

The colossal loss of life and gross violations of international humanitarian law during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda prompted the UN Security Council to establish in 1993 and 1994. two international criminal courts. Their full names are: International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, and International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, committed on the territory of Rwanda, and citizens of Rwanda responsible for genocide and other similar violations committed on the territory of neighboring states, during the period from January 1 to December 31, 1994.

In October 1992, the UN Security Council established a commission of experts to investigate and analyze information about violations of the Geneva Conventions and other norms of international law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Specialists examined 65 thousand materials obtained from various sources and conducted 32 research missions. The conclusions were that the world body should immediately create a judicial body to investigate and punish war crimes.

The UN Security Council, having recognized the fact of the commission of mass atrocities and cruelties in the former Yugoslavia, in particular in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as posing a threat to international peace and security, in the exercise of its powers under Chapter. VII of the UN Charter adopted on 25 May 1993 Resolution No. 827(1993) establishing an International Criminal Tribunal on the basis of the Statute to prosecute persons responsible for violations of humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and the date on which The Security Council will determine after the restoration of peace (resolutions No. 808 and 827). The resolution establishing the Tribunal was adopted unanimously, and it stated that its seat was The Hague (Holland).

The Permanent Representative of Russia, Yuli Vorontsov, who chaired the meeting of the Security Council on May 25, 1993, stated: “Those perpetrators of mass crimes... of violations of the laws and customs of war, crimes of genocide, as well as against humanity must suffer a well-deserved punishment. Particularly important is the fact that for the first time in history, it is not the winner who judges the vanquished, but the entire international community, represented by the Tribunal, will pronounce its verdict on those who grossly violate not only the norms of international law, but also simply human ideas about morality and humanity.”

The International Tribunal for Rwanda was established on the basis of the following UN Security Council resolutions: 1) Security Council Resolution No. 955 of September 8, 1994; 2) Security Council resolution No. 978 of February 27, 1995; 3) Security Council Resolution No. 1165 of 30 April 1998. By Resolution No. 977 (1995), the Council decided that the seat of the Tribunal would be the city of Arusha (United Republic of Tanzania). At the same time, the Tribunal for Rwanda is intended not only to prosecute those responsible for acts of genocide, but also to promote reconciliation and the restoration of justice and rule of law in Rwanda.

Since the Rwanda Tribunal was established to try crimes committed during a non-international armed conflict, the applicable humanitarian law has a different scope than in the case of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. In the first place is genocide, then crimes against humanity, as well as generally accepted norms for the protection of victims of war in accordance with Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Second Additional Protocol to these conventions of 1977, which contains rules relating to non-international armed conflicts.

According to Art. 1 of the Statute gave the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia the competence to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. In applying this general competence, the International Tribunal under Art. 2 of the Statute was vested with the competence to prosecute persons who violate the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 by their actions or orders to commit the following acts:

a) premeditated murder;

b) torture and inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

c) intentionally causing grave suffering or serious damage to a person’s physical condition or health;

d) unlawful, arbitrary and large-scale destruction and appropriation of property not caused by military necessity;

e) the fact of forcing a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the armed forces of an enemy power;

f) the fact that a prisoner of war or a civilian has been deprived of his right to impartial and fair justice;

g) expulsion or unlawful transfer of civilians or their unlawful detention;

h) taking civilians hostage.

The Charter of the Tribunal for Rwanda does not contain an exhaustive list of crimes against the “rights of Geneva” in relation to a non-international conflict, indicating: violence against the life, health, physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder, cruel treatment (torture, mutilation); collective punishments; taking hostages; terrorist attacks; flagrant attacks on personal dignity, in particular degrading treatment, rape, forced prostitution, etc.; robbery; adjudication and execution of punishments other than a legally constituted court. An independent crime is the threat of committing any of the listed acts.

In continuation of the exercise of its general competence, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in accordance with Art. 3 of the Statute was vested with the competence to prosecute persons responsible for violations of the laws and customs of war. These violations included, in particular:

a) the use of toxic weapons or other weapons intended to cause unnecessary suffering;

b) wanton destruction of cities or villages or their devastation not justified by military necessity;

c) attack or bombardment, regardless of the means used, of unprotected cities, villages, populations or buildings;

d) deliberate seizure, destruction or damage of historical monuments, works of art or places

religious practices that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

f) acts of theft, robbery or misappropriation of cultural property.

Taking into account the special gravity of such an international crime as genocide, the Security Council included Art. 4, which provided the possibility of prosecuting those responsible for acts of genocide. The definition of the crime of genocide in both statutes is given in accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. The Statute of the International Tribunal, having adopted the conventional definition of the crime of genocide in its text, confirmed and developed the principle of international law, according to which criminal liability of persons is provided who committed the crimes of genocide.

Crimes against humanity occupy a significant place in the general list of international crimes. Taking into account the seriousness of this type of violation of international humanitarian law, the UN Security Council considered it necessary to highlight this category of offenses (along with serious violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, violations of the laws and customs of war, as well as the crime of genocide) in a separate article.

In Art. 5 of the Statute mentions the following serious violations of international humanitarian law: a) murder; b) extermination; c) enslavement; d) link; f) detention; f) torture; g) rape; h) persecution on political, racial and religious grounds, as well as other inhumane acts.

It is important to pay attention to the following feature of the Statute of the international tribunal. Firstly, the Statute does not allow any exceptions from criminal liability depending on the official position of a particular person. The official status of the accused, whether he is as the head of state or government, or a high-ranking official, does not exempt him from criminal liability and cannot serve as a basis for mitigating the penalty. Secondly, the Statute does not allow exceptions for superiors in respect of acts of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by subordinates when the superior knew or should have known about the acts undertaken by his subordinate and did not take any action to prevent them. Third, the Statute does not allow any exception from criminal liability for subordinates because they committed criminal acts on the orders of the government or a high official.

In accordance with the general principle of criminal law "pop bis in idem" It is established that someone acquitted by the Tribunal cannot be tried for the same act by a national court. The Tribunal also cannot re-examine the case of a person who has already been sentenced by a state court. There are two exceptions: a) the committed act was qualified by the state court as an ordinary criminal offense; b) the trial was intended to protect the offender from international criminal liability.

The specified provisions of the Statute of the International Tribunal concerning the specific application of the international legal norm on the criminal responsibility of individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law can rightfully be regarded as a contribution to the improvement of modern international law in general and international criminal law in particular.

The Tribunal for Yugoslavia consists of the following parts: a judicial body consisting of three Trial Chambers and one Appeals Chamber, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. The Tribunal consists of 27 judges: 15 permanent and 12 judges ad litem. Judges of the Tribunal must have high moral and professional qualities, the necessary experience and knowledge in the field of criminal and international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Candidates for judges are proposed by states and, on the proposal of the Security Council, are elected by the General Assembly for a term of five years and can be re-elected.

The Prosecutor acts independently as an autonomous organ of the Tribunal. He is appointed on the recommendation of the UN Secretary General by the Security Council for a term of four years. Moreover, the prosecutor of the Tribunal for Yugoslavia is also the prosecutor of the Tribunal for Rwanda.

The prosecutor has the right to initiate an investigation on his own initiative or information received from governments, UN bodies, intergovernmental and even non-governmental, i.e. public organizations. This is explained by the fact that the Tribunals do not have the same mechanism as the national justice authorities, and therefore use the widest channels of information.

The indictment prepared by the prosecutor is submitted to the judge, who, after considering it, decides on its approval. If approved, the judge, at the request of the prosecutor, issues a warrant for arrest, detention, etc.

The trial takes place in the presence of the accused and is open. The statutes provide for the obligation to ensure that the accused has all generally recognized rights, as set out in Art. 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including, of course, the presumption of innocence. Tribunals must take the necessary measures to protect victims and witnesses. The verdict is pronounced by a majority of the chamber's judges and is announced publicly. Dissenting opinions of judges are allowed.

The form of punishment is imprisonment. When determining the penalty, the judicial practice of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, respectively, is taken into account. The punishment also corresponds to the legal consciousness of the respective country. A decision may also be made to confiscate and return property obtained by criminal means to its rightful owners. The prison sentence is served in a state determined by the Tribunal on the basis of a list of states that have given consent.

Exercising his right to appeal a sentence, the convicted person may file a complaint with the Appeals Chamber. The basis for this is an error in law or fact that led to an incorrect verdict. On the same grounds, the verdict can also be appealed by the prosecutor. The decision of the Appeals Chamber is final and cannot be appealed.

During the existence of the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a total of 142 trials were held, including 92 against Serbs, 33 against Croats, eight against Kosovo Albanians, seven against Bosnian Muslims and two against Macedonians. The Hague Tribunal charges were brought against the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs R. Mladic and R. Karadzic. Also accused at the trial in The Hague was the former President of Yugoslavia S. Milosevic, who died in the prison of the Tribunal.

The results of the Tribunal's work for Rwanda are also clear. Former Prime Minister J. Kambanda has been sentenced to life for crimes against humanity. Among the proven episodes was the encouragement of misanthropic propaganda by the state radio station RTLM, which called for the destruction of Tutsi citizens. In December 1999, J. Rutaganda, who in 1994 headed the Interahamwe detachments (the “youth wing” of the then ruling Republican National Movement for the Development of Democracy Party), was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On September 1, 2003, the case of E. Ndindabahizi, who was the Minister of Finance of Rwanda in 1994, was considered. According to the police, he is involved in the massacre of people in Kibuye Prefecture. Ndindabahizi personally ordered the killings, distributed weapons to Hutu volunteers and was present during the attacks and beatings.

The only European convicted by the Tribunal was the Belgian J. Ruggu. On December 18, 2008, the International Tribunal for Rwanda sentenced former Rwandan Army Colonel T. Bagosora to life imprisonment for unleashing genocide, as well as for organizing the Interahamwe militia.

Cooperation with states and the provision of legal assistance by the latter are important for the activities of the tribunals. According to the statutes of the Tribunals, States cooperate with the Tribunals in matters of investigation and prosecution. Without any delay, States must comply with requests for assistance or orders from the Trial Chamber, including, but not limited to, such activities as: identifying and locating persons; taking testimony and collecting evidence; delivery of documents; arrest or detention; transfer of accused to tribunals. The obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal for Yugoslavia was confirmed by the Dayton Agreements for a Peaceful Settlement in Yugoslavia in 1995; the authorities of the states formed on the territory of Yugoslavia in most cases ignored the requests of the Tribunal.

Another important point is that tribunals and national courts have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law. This means that the courts of any state, and not just the one on whose territory the crimes were committed, have the right to consider the cases of such persons. In other words, universal jurisdiction has been established. This provision is very important, since the tribunal has difficulty in dealing with numerous cases, and the participation of national courts in the prosecution of war criminals on the basis of universal jurisdiction increases the level of combating this type of crime.

The jurisdiction of international tribunals takes precedence over the jurisdiction of national courts. At any stage of the proceedings, the tribunals may request that proceedings be transferred to them.

Cases of transfer of the defendant to the tribunal for Yugoslavia have occurred. In 1994, the Munich court heard the case of D. Tadic, who was accused of complicity in genocide. At the request of the Tribunal it was handed over to him. As the Tribunal put it, "Tadic's case is important for the prosecution of those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. The crimes with which he is accused may provide evidence of the existence of a corresponding plan for the massive and systematic persecution of the civilian population of the region (commonly referred to as ethnic cleansing)."

The Yugoslavia Tribunal became the first international body to try cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide after the Nuremberg Tribunal and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. However, the important difference is that in Nuremberg and Tokyo the victors judged the vanquished, while the Yugoslavia Tribunal is a body of the international community that tries crimes regardless of which side the perpetrators were on.

However, the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is often criticized, especially by Serbian and Russian authorities, for what they perceive as bias in its work, resulting in harsher sentences for Serbs than for Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars. Albanians.

Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN V.I. Churkin said on June 4, 2008: “We consider the state of affairs in the Yugoslavia Tribunal to be unsatisfactory. We expect from the Tribunal a detailed report on the measures taken to... expose the former Tribunal Prosecutor Carla del Ponte regarding the facts which until recently were suppressed by the Tribunal, there is a feeling that serious allegations, such as the massive forced removal of human organs, are simply ignored."

International criminal law. P. 95.

At which the criminals who took over Germany and turned it into a weapon for committing the most terrible crimes were tried. This trial was the first, since before this there were no cases in legal practice of trials of political figures who committed military aggression against other countries. This was the Nuremberg trial. A few months later, a similar trial of Japanese war criminals took place in Tokyo.

Nuremberg

The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of war criminals were not carried out on ordinary participants in hostilities from among the rank and file or officers, but rather on the most faithful assistants of A. Hitler. They were judged for starting the most significant and large-scale war, thereby involving many countries in it.

The basis for the first process was an agreement concluded between the allied states. As a result, the International Military Tribunal was formed. His goal was to bring justice to the main Nazis.

The Nuremberg trials lasted almost a whole year. On September 30, 1946, the tribunal began announcing the verdict, which was completed only the next day. Almost all the defendants brought before the tribunal were sentenced to the highest penalty - death. Some individuals were still lucky; they were sentenced to life imprisonment. Associations such as the SS and SD, the Gestapo and the highest ranks of the Nazi Party in Germany were classified as criminal, and their members received severe punishment.

A total of 12 people were sentenced to death, including Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, Goering, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner and others.

Tokyo

The Tokyo war crimes trial, like the Nuremberg trial, administered justice to the criminals of World War II, but in the capital of Japan. It began on May 3, 1946, and its duration was an order of magnitude longer than the tribunal in Germany. The Tokyo trial lasted more than two years and ended on November 12, 1948.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentenced seven of the biggest war criminals to death, including the Minister of War, the Prime Minister and the highest-ranking generals of the Land of the Rising Sun. For other criminals, the Tokyo trial brought various prison sentences, sixteen of which were life sentences.

Among the charges that were brought against the defendant were preparations for war, starting a war, participating in it, exterminating civilians, prisoners, and many other serious criminal offenses.

The significance of the trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo

The Tokyo trial, similar to the trial held in Nuremberg, was of enormous importance for history. Both tribunals recognized and established that the aggressive war that Nazi Germany started was of the gravest scale.

In addition, education has become the source and basis for certain legal norms used in international law. The statutes of both tribunals themselves, as well as the sentences they passed, were later approved by the UN, and, consequently, the principles of these documents, in accordance with which punishment was carried out and the elements of serious crimes were established, became generally recognized norms in the field of international law.

Consequences of the processes

It was thanks to the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials that subsequently such important ones as the Universal Treaty were prepared. They also had a tangible impact on various international covenants, including the Resolution against and the convention on the protection of cultural property in military conflicts, as well as many other significant documents.

In 1968, the UN Convention was adopted, according to which the statute of limitations for bringing criminal liability to war criminals does not apply. Such a document was needed in connection with frequent attempts to stop the prosecution of individual Nazi criminals.

Conclusion

The international and historical significance of the trials that took place after the Second World War in the cities of Nuremberg and Tokyo cannot be overestimated. During these processes, it was noted that they would go down in history. The material and information obtained as a result of them will be so significant that in the future historians will turn to these results in order to find the truth. At the same time, the trials of the forties will become a kind of warning for politicians and the leadership of all states of the world.

Japanese delegation aboard the battleship Missouri

TOKYO TRIBUNAL

A continuation of the Nuremberg trials in Europe was the IMT (International Military Tribunal) for the Far East, which was formed by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces in the Far East, General MacArthur on January 19, 1946, he also appointed the chief prosecutor of the IMT for the Far East.

Douglas MacArthur

The demand for the trial of Japanese war criminals was formulated in the Potsdam Declaration (July 26, 1945), and in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender of September 2, 1945 (signed on board the US battleship Missouri) a commitment was made to “fairly carry out the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.” , including the punishment of war criminals. Rules of procedure were approved for it, regulating: notification of defendants, presentation of additional documents, procedure for conducting the trial, questioning witnesses, considering petitions, keeping records, etc.

The tribunal included 11 states: the USSR, the USA, China, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, India and the Philippines. All allied states that were at war with Japan were given the right to appoint their representative as an additional prosecutor, but only the 11 states listed above took advantage of this right.

Along with the Tokyo court, other trials were carried out in parallel, the most significant of them being the Manila and Khabarovsk trials. During the IMT process for the Far East, 818 public court hearings and 131 courtroom hearings were held; The tribunal accepted 4,356 documentary evidence and 1,194 witness statements (of which 419 were heard directly by the tribunal).

The Tokyo Trial was longer than the Nuremberg Trial and ran from May 3, 1946 to November 12, 1948 - 2 years, 5 months and 9 days.

The indictment of 28 major Japanese war criminals was filed on behalf of the United States, the Republic of China, Great Britain, the USSR, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, India and the Philippines. It contained 53 points grouped in three chapters.

The first chapter contained an accusation of crimes against peace in accordance with Article 5 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Paragraph (a) of this chapter provided for the following crimes: planning, preparing, initiating or waging a declared or undeclared war of aggression or a war in violation of international law, treaties, agreements or obligations, or participation in a joint plan or conspiracy to carry out any of the above actions. And paragraph “b” established liability for crimes against the rules and customs of war.

The second chapter determined responsibility for murders, conspiracies and attempted murders, which are actions for which the listed persons, each of them separately, are personally responsible. These actions are both crimes against peace, against the laws of war and crimes against humanity, as well as a violation of all paragraphs of Article 5 of the said Charter, international law and the domestic laws of all or one or more countries where these crimes were committed (including Japan).

The third chapter contained charges of crimes against the customs of war and crimes against humanity, being acts for which the named persons and each of them separately are personally responsible under Article 5 of the IMT Charter for the Far East and under international law or one of them.

For example, paragraph 45 read: “Accused Araki, Hashimato, Hata, Hiranuma, Hirota, Itagaki, Kal, Kido, Matsui, Muto, Suzuki and Umezu on December 12, 1939 and on subsequent days, by illegally ordering, conniving and allowing the Japanese Armed Forces to attack on the city of Nanjing, in violation of the treaty articles listed in paragraph 2 of this document, and by organizing the massacre of its inhabitants and violating international law, illegally killed thousands of civilians and disarmed soldiers of the Republic of China, the names and numbers of whom are currently unknown."

Paragraphs “b” and “e” of Article 5 provided for liability for such crimes against the laws of war and against humanity as murder, extermination, enslavement, as well as other inhumane acts committed for both political and racial reasons, which were carried out in the time of or in connection with the commission of any crime, regardless of whether such act violated the domestic laws of the country where it was committed.

All counts of the indictment detailed both the numerous acts of criminal acts themselves and the forms of specific participation in them by individual defendants. All the accused held the highest positions in the government and the command of the armed forces. It was noted that all the crimes were planned in advance in order to implement the delusional idea of ​​the Japanese military: to ensure the dominance of Japan, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy over the world. The implementation of aggression was accompanied by unheard of cruelties, complete violation of the principles of freedom and respect for the human person, ruin of the economy, and destruction of cultural values.

The defendants were given the opportunity to defend themselves in court, present evidence, and participate in interrogations; each of them had 3-4 lawyers. The guilt of all defendants was fully confirmed. After a meeting that lasted more than 6 months, the tribunal on November 4, 1948 began announcing the verdict (1214 pages).

The verdict stated that throughout the entire period considered by the tribunal (1928-45), Japan's foreign and domestic policies were aimed at preparing and unleashing wars of aggression. The defendants, together with the leaders of fascist Germany and Italy, sought to conquer world domination and enslave other peoples. The issue of aggressive actions against the USSR, which constituted one of the main elements of Japanese policy, was examined in detail. For a number of years, the Japanese government waged a war of aggression against China, plundered and destroyed the Chinese population; in December 1941, the Japanese military attacked the American naval base of Pearl Harbor, as well as Hong Kong and Singapore, without declaring war.

US naval base attack on Pearl Harbor

The materials of the trial revealed the true goals pursued by the Japanese “new order” in East Asia, revealed the expansionist plans of the Japanese imperialists, who tried to create a pan-Asian YAMATO Empire under false slogans. A large number of materials and testimonies, 4,356 documentary evidence of crimes committed by military and political leaders of Japan, were reviewed and analyzed.

On November 12, 1948, the International Military Tribunal in Tokyo announced the verdict of the main Japanese war criminals. A total of 4,226 Japanese war criminals were convicted at these trials, of which 941 were executed.

tribunal judges

Koki Hirochi, Seishiro Itagaki, Heichiro Kitura, Iwane Matsui, Yakiro Muto, Hideki Tojo, and Kenuzi Doihara were sentenced to death by hanging.
Former Japanese Prime Minister General Hideki Tōjō (東条英機, 1884–1948) after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. After the surrender of the Empire of Japan on September 2, 1945, the commander of the Allied armies ordered the arrest of Japanese war criminals. One of them was General Tojo. During his arrest, he made an unsuccessful attempt to shoot himself: the wound was not fatal. After Tojo was cured, he was transported to Sugamo Prison, where he was hanged in 1948.

Seven of the twenty-nine defendants are in the dock at the Tokyo Trial.
In the photo, front row from left to right: Japanese Minister of the Army, Marshal Shunroku Hata (1879-1962), Governor General of Korea Jiro Minami (1874-1955), Japanese Prime Minister General Hideki Tojo (1884-1948) and General Yoshijiro Umezu ( 1882-1949). Second row from left to right: Colonel Kingoro Hashimoto (1890-1957), Admiral Osami Nagano (1880-1947) and General Hiroshi Oshima (1886-1975).

The following were sentenced to life imprisonment: Naoki Hoshino, Sadao Araki, Koitsi Kido, Kunlaki Koigo, Jiro Minami, Takaumo Oki, Hiroshi Osita, Keirio Sato, Shigetiro Shimada, Teiichi Suzuki, Toshio Shiratoru, Yoshijiro Umezu, Okonori Kaya, Shunropu Hata, Kiitsiro Hiranuma , Kingoro Hashimoto. Defendant Shigenori Togo was sentenced to 20 years, and defendant Mamoru Shigemitsu was sentenced to 7 years in prison. Two of the defendants, Osami Nigano and Yosuki Matsuoka, died during the trial, and defendant Shumei Okawa (an ideologue of Japanese imperialism) was declared insane, so his case was dropped until he recovered.

Among those convicted were: 4 former prime ministers (Tojo, Hiranuma, Hirota, Koiso), 11 former ministers (Araki, Hata, Hoshino, Itagaki, Kaya, Kido, Shimada, Suzuki, Togo, Shigemitsu, Minami), 2 ambassadors (Oshima , Shiratori), 8 representatives of the highest generals (Doihara, Kimura, Muto, Oka, Sato, Umezu, Matsui, Hashimoto).

The sentence of those sentenced to death was carried out on the night of December 23, 1948 in Tokyo (Japan) in Sugamo Prison.

Sugamo prison in Tokyo

The Tokyo Trial, as well as the Nuremberg Trial, was essential for the establishment of the principles and norms of modern international law, which consider aggression as a grave crime. Responding to the atrocities of fascists and militarists, unprecedented in world history, these processes became an important milestone in the development of international law. After all, for the first time, officials responsible for planning, preparing and unleashing aggressive wars were brought to criminal liability. It was recognized that the position of the head of state, department or army, as well as the execution of government orders or a criminal order do not exempt from criminal liability.

Despite pressure placed on the head of the American occupation forces in Japan, General Douglas MacArthur, by leaders of several countries, including United States President Harry Truman, to bring Emperor Hirohito to trial as a war criminal, the general insisted that Hirohito remained the emperor and symbol of the unity of the Japanese nation. Hirohito escaped trial and remained on the throne, but he was forced to unequivocally renounce the traditional claims about the divine nature of the Japanese emperors, descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu (the "Ningen-sengen" declaration). The title of the monarch was changed from "Sovereign of the Empire" to "Constitutional Monarch" in

To this day, the principles of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials serve as the basis for refusing to carry out a criminal order, warning of the impending responsibility of those leaders of states who commit crimes against humanity. These processes became international in the full sense of the word, because they expressed the will of all countries that signed or acceded to the London Agreement. It was demonstrated to the whole world that even in the post-war period there is an essential basis for fruitful cooperation between states with different social systems - this is the will of the people for peace and the strengthening of international law and order. However, on August 9, 1945 (the day of the Soviet offensive in the Far East), when all the newspapers, along with the message about the signing of the London Agreement and the creation of the International Military Tribunal, they also reported that American aircraft dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki (on Hiroshima - August 6).

Hiroshima after the atomic bombing

By signing an agreement to punish war crimes, the American command at the same time committed no less heinous crimes against the civilian population of Japan.

It is no secret that these bombs were aimed not only at Japan, but also at the USSR in order to intimidate its recent ally in the anti-fascist coalition, force it to make concessions and, ultimately, subjugate it to its will. But in fact, the whole world was absorbed in the era of “double standards” and a new era began - the era of the “Cold War”.

The material uses photographs from the archives of the Russian Civil Aviation.

Alexander Petrogradov

War is a denial of true humanity. It’s not just a matter of killing people, for a person must die one way or another, but the conscious and persistent spread of hatred and lies, which are gradually instilled in people.

Jawaharlal Nehru

No sooner had the Nuremberg trials ended than the Tokyo trial began. In Nuremberg, the United States could not play a leading role, since, in general, it did not make a significant contribution to the defeat of Nazi troops. Unlike England. However, with regard to the war with Japan, no one could say that it was a little costly for America. And America decided to outdo the Europeans in all respects, both in the scale of the action being prepared, and in the scope of Japan in general, they blamed the alliance with Germany and Italy, which was signed in Berlin on September 27, 1940, for a period of 10 years. The Nazi government assumed that Japanese aggression would weaken and disadvantage those countries with which they were at war and those countries with which they intended to go to war. Accordingly, Nazi conspirators called on Japan to pursue a “new order.” The judges noted that, taking advantage of the successes of the aggressive war waged by Germany at that time, Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on December 7, 1941, as well as the Netherlands in the southwest Pacific and the British Commonwealth of Nations. , into French Indochina. The Japanese fought bravely in that war and occupied half of China and Indochina. Its only neighbor to whom it did not make any territorial or any other claims was the Soviet Union. And it was he who seized most of its territory and turned out to be one of the central figures at the Tokyo Trial. The Tokyo trial had to take place. I really wanted then to stigmatize aggression in all its forms and establish a lasting and just peace forever.

In 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was established with its seat in Tokyo. The charter of this Tribunal was approved by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces in the Far East, MacArthur, on January 19, 1946. The Charter defined the Tribunal's structure, jurisdiction and general conditions to ensure a fair trial for the accused. In addition, the rules of procedure of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East were approved, regulating the notification of the defendants, the presentation of additional documents, the procedure for conducting the trial, interrogating witnesses, considering petitions, keeping records, etc. The list of countries represented at this trial was much wider. The indictment of 28 major Japanese war criminals was filed on behalf of the United States, the Republic of China, Great Britain, the USSR, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, India and the Philippines. It contained 53 points grouped in three chapters.

The first chapter contained an accusation of crimes against peace in accordance with Article 5 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Paragraph (a) of this chapter provided for the following crimes: planning, preparing, initiating or waging a declared or undeclared war of aggression or a war in violation of international law, treaties, agreements or obligations, or participation in a joint plan or conspiracy to carry out any of the above actions. Point “b” established liability for crimes against the rules and customs of war.

The second chapter determined responsibility for murders, conspiracies and attempted murders, which are actions for which the listed persons, each of them separately, are personally responsible. These actions are both crimes against peace, against the laws of war and crimes against humanity, as well as a violation of all paragraphs of Article 5 of the said Charter, international law and the domestic laws of all or one or more countries where these crimes were committed (including Japan).

The third chapter contained charges of crimes against the customs of war and crimes against humanity, being acts for which the named persons and each of them separately are personally responsible under Article 5 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and under international law or one of them. For example, paragraph 45 read: “Accused Araki, Hashimato, Hata, Hiranuma, Hirota, Itagaki, Kal, Kido, Matsui, Muto, Suzuki and Umezu, on December 12, 1939 and on subsequent days, by illegally ordering, conniving and authorizing the Japanese armed forces to attack the city of Nanjing, in violation treaty articles listed in paragraph 2 of this document, and by organizing the massacre of its inhabitants and violating international law, unlawfully killed thousands of civilians and disarmed soldiers of the Republic of China, the names and numbers of whom are currently unknown.”

Paragraphs “b” and “e” of Article 5 provided for liability for such crimes against the laws of war and against humanity as murder, extermination, enslavement, as well as other inhumane acts committed for both political and racial reasons, which were carried out in the time of or in connection with the commission of any crime, regardless of whether such act violated the domestic laws of the country where it was committed. All counts of the indictment detailed both the numerous acts of criminal acts themselves and the forms of specific participation of individual defendants in them. All the accused held the highest positions in the government and the command of the armed forces. It was noted that all these crimes were planned in advance in order to implement the delusional idea of ​​the Japanese military to ensure the dominance of Japan, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy over the world. The implementation of aggression was accompanied by unheard of cruelties, complete violation of the principles of freedom and respect for the human person, ruin of the economy, and destruction of cultural values.

Due to the fact that the Soviet Union had nothing to incriminate Japan, the USSR prosecutor A.N. Vasiliev, who was present at the trial, placed special emphasis on the fact that “the main Japanese war criminals committed their crimes together with their accomplices from the Hitler clique and that imperialist Japan should share the responsibility of Hitler's Germany for all the atrocities it committed. Millions died on the battlefields and were tortured in fascist dungeons; millions of women, children and old people exterminated in peaceful cities and villages that were captured, multimillion-dollar losses suffered by peoples around the world as a result of the enormous destruction caused by an aggressive war; the death of colossal cultural and historical values, barbarously destroyed - this is the account humanity presents to imperialist Japan in complicity with Hitler’s Germany.”

And of course, during the trial no one mentioned the barbaric bombing of the peaceful Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs - an action that a few years later was recognized by the whole world as a truly inhumane act.

On November 12, 1948, the International Military Tribunal in Tokyo announced the verdict of the main Japanese war criminals. Koki Hirochi, Seishiro Itagaki, Heichiro Kitura, Iwane Matsui, Yakiro Muto, Hideki Tojo, and Kenuzi Doihara were sentenced to death by hanging. The following were sentenced to life imprisonment: Naoki Hoshino, Sadao Araki, Koitsi Kido, Kunlaki Koigo, Jiro Minami, Takaumo Oki, Hiroshi Osita, Keirio Sato, Shigetiro Shimada, Teiichi Suzuki, Toshio Shiratoru, Yoshijiro Umezu, Okonori Kaya, Shunropu Hata, Kiitsiro Hiranuma , Kingoro Hashimoto. Defendant Shigenori Togo was sentenced to 20 years, and defendant Mamoru Shigemitsu was sentenced to 7 years in prison. Two of the defendants, Osami Nigano and Yosuki Matsuoka, died during the trial, and defendant Shumei Okawa was declared insane, and his case was dismissed pending his recovery.